Faculty status for librarians

My still silent co-poster Divine sent me a copy of a 1977 article by H. William Axford on faculty status for librarians. Sorry, can't link to it since it's not in an open access journal, but here's the full citation:

Axford, H. William. "The Three Faces of Eve: or The Identity of Academic Librarianship, A Symposium." Journal of Academic Librarianship 2.6 (1977): 276-278.

In my professional career, I've had positions with and without faculty status, and have come to the conclusion that while the work doesn't really change because of status, I prefer having faculty status. The Axford piece captures quite well the nebulous position of librarians in the academy, but he posits a homogenous faculty club, where terminal degree, publications, and research determine entrance. That's a bit too two-dimensional for my tastes. There are plenty of differences already extant in the faculty club. A humanities "researcher" is, in the eyes of someone in, say, biochemistry, a total hack, with their seven articles and book before tenure or whatever it takes. In the sciences, they crank out seven articles a quarter or so, all while running constant experiments where they manage a large staff of grad. students, post docs, and staff research assistants. Then there are all those fields where faculty don't publish much at all: art, music, theater performance, dance, etc., but are judged on their teaching and creative abilities. Compared to a voice professor, librarians are easy to assess for tenure. That arts bunch also has a bunch of people without PhDs, so not even that is a uniform hurdle for entrance.

Sure, no one on the faculty here views a librarian as a true peer in terms of prestige or whatever. What do I care? I'll take faculty status for what it offers me: job security, access to grant money, a place in university governance (where my departmental affiliation matters little, to be honest), etc.